In 2010, LA prosecutors had sought an indictment against Wright because he did not live at the address listed on his voter registration. State law requires that every state legislator live in the district that he/she represents. Because of the false address on his registration, he committed perjury and voted fraudulently in five elections.

So, Wright has been found in the wrong, declared guilty of voter fraud by a jury of his peers, and awaits sentencing. Wright's legal team has vowed to file an appeal, yet Wright at this time remains a convicted felon.

To add insult to indictment and conviction, Wright attempted to introduce a bill which would reduce non-violent felonies to misdemeanors, two days afterhe was convicted of eight felony counts himself! Even though the convicted state senator claimed that he did not introduce the bill to save himself the humiliation of being barred from pursuing elected office in the past, the legislation would have indeed softened the blow of his eight felony counts to misdemeanors. Wright's outrageous move did not escape State Senate President Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), and Wright pulled his bill. "Wrong author, wrong time," shared Steinberg's spokesman.

Of course, Steinberg's disapproval does not mean that the Democratic Supermajority will not consider the bill at a later time. What's more disturbing, Steinberg has done nothing to have convicted felon Steinberg expelled from the state senate. As of now, only three Republican lawmakers have called on the upper chamber to move for Wright's expulsion, as well as independent candidate for Secretary of State David Schnurr. While Steinberg has asserted that since an appeal will render a final determination, the state senate will wait before proceeding. The state senate President has even justified leaving Wright on committee assignments.

Is this the proper precedent for handling felonious legislators?

In 1994, state senator Frank Hill (R-Whittier) was convicted of non-violent felonies (soliciting a bribe from an undercover agent). Hill stopped voting on bills and stepped down from his committee assignments after his conviction. After that, the state senate government committee voted 4-0 to expel him after the guilty verdict. Why is the state senate stalling this time?

And who has not? State senator Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), who has recently announced his candidacy for the Congressional seat opened up following Congressman Henry Waxman’s decision to retire from Congress. Senator Lieu has a remarkable legislative record for protecting bears from hunting dogs, preventing adolescents from using tanning salons, and microchipping pets. He attempted triple the state’s licensing fee, has sided with public sector unions, even voted against the state senate bill which would expedite the termination of teachers guilt of moral turpitude against their students.

And now Lieu has said nothing about his convicted felon colleague Roderick Wright. After contacting his Sacramento office, Lieu’s office has confirmed that he issued no press released.
Lieu is wrong to say nothing about Wright, and he should the right the wrong of his silence by joining the editorial boards of statewide newspapers and the Republicans in his caucus to demand that Senator Wright resign from office or move to expel him through committee resolution.

Contact State Senator Lieu’s office, and tell him to stop being silent. Demand that he demand the resignation or expulsion of convicted felon Roderick Wright from the California State Senate.

David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.

Libertarianism is on the rise, from the decriminalization of controlled substances like marijuana, to the expansion of concealed carry laws, to the tax cut and spending restraints in statehouses throughout the country.

Libertarianism is on the rise, and not a moment too soon, since President Obama is more like the Evil Empire of Star Wars mythology, expanding a death-like grip of more government and greater regulations over all Americans.

One quote from the New Yorker article cannot be ignored:

Rob Stein, a Democratic political strategist who has studied the conservative movement’s finances, said that the Kochs are “at the epicenter of the anti-Obama movement. But it’s not just about Obama. They would have done the same to Hillary Clinton. They did the same with Bill Clinton. They are out to destroy progressivism.”

God bless the Koch Brothers!

Sources suggest, however, that the Koch Brothers were trying to take over the Cato Institute, a well-known and well-respected libertarian Washington think-tank. The New York Times reports that the research institute fought to retain its political independence. The Koch Brothers dropped two lawsuits, and one of the leaders at odd with the brothers resigned. The LA Times advanced the same conspiracy arguments about the Koch Brothers taking over the Cato Institute. Any sense of political connections is nothing but bad news. Think tanks by their very existence must seek information before promoting advocacy of any kind.

The Times quoted this statement from Charles Koch:

"I have every confidence that John's leadership will enable Cato to reach new levels of effectiveness. The alarming increase in the size and scope of government is undermining freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all. Effective action is required to limit government to its proper role.

The Koch Brothers maintain a strong libertarian streak, and their connection with the libertarian Washington think tank is nothing unusual.

God bless the Koch Brothers. They know when to call it quits. Donald Trump also felt the blow of individual rights, which trump corporate and self-interest. The Donald tried to acquire an old lady's home through eminent domain. A judge stuck down his land grab. Fine and good. If the Koch Brothers were rebuffed from taking over a think-tank, then what is everyone afraid of?

Congressman Henry Waxman slammed the Koch Brothers by arguing that the Koch Brothers' influence in Congress was hurting the rest of the country. Waxman criticized Koch Industries for science denial, partisanship, and the rising power of special interests. Waxman then denounced the Koch Brothers because they would profit from the rollback of EPA regulations.

Congressman Waxman has been dishonoring science, hyping up climate change as a serious issue, even though the growing academic consensus disputes climate change as a serious, let alone manmade matter. Waxman's ruthless pursuit to expand the federal government at the expense of the United States Constitution, the power of the several states, and the rights and authorities of individual Americans, is the more lethal threat which voters need to pay attention to

Frankly, the vast majority if Americans would profit from not just the rollback but the demise of the sclerotic, frustrating, hyper-bureaucratic EPA, which has made it nearly impossible for businesses to expand, and even legitimate homeowners to build on their own property.

God bless the Koch Brothers!

The Koch Brothers also support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, as do other business interests, labor groups, and even the State Department, which has found that the pipeline would have a minimal adverse effect on the environment. Henry Waxman criticized their interest in the project.

At the time that Congress was investigating whether to approve the project or not, the now retiring Congressman was looking for any strawmen to distract detractors from his decades of crony political maneuvering, along with the ongoing failures of Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and the failure of nineteen green tech companies: "I'm sorry Solyndra happened."

Despite Waxman's attempt to draw the Koch Brothers into a Committee-subpoena drama, Waxman retracted his outrageous claims of cronyism.

God bless the Koch Brothers!

The same LA Times which insists on drawing the Koch Brothers into the miasma of political contributions and corruptions, none of which is substantiated, is going bankrupt. While Congressman Henry Waxman demanded information from the publisher and leaders of the company regarding the slagging fate of the newspaper, the Koch Brothers considered purchasing the newspaper and reviving its coverage. With their conservative understanding of how business and markets work, plus their appreciate for libertarian values, their leadership of the paper would have saved the moribund publication, as only conservative and right-leaning media sights are surviving and thriving, while left-leaning newspapers and radio stations are falling away or closing down altogether.

The Koch Brothers, in earlier days.

Ultimately, the Koch Brothers decided not to buy the LA Times, because they did not see the paper as a worthy investment. If they had purchased the paper, they might have revived real truth and accuracy in reporting to counteract the unrepentant and irresponsible liberal bent of the mainstream media. By choosing not to purchase the paper, the brothers further consigned the LA Times to its disintegrating irrelevance as a trusted or respectable news source.

Either way, God bless the Koch Brothers!

The influence not just of the Koch Brothers, but a growing resurgence for freedom from Big Government, has drawn the ire of embattled and embittered Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. During the October 2013 government shutdown, the Nevada senator blamed the oil magnates for instigating the stand-still in Washington.

“A great deal of what you read and hear about Koch Industries is erroneous or misleading,” wrote Philip Ellender, the president of government and public affairs at Koch, in a letter to senators on Wednesday.
Besides, where were the Democrats in the US Senate, when the Republican leadership in the House was ready to meet in a conference and discuss a comprehensive compromise which would have satisfied both sides, and more importantly the American People, who did not want a shutdown, and they did not want Obamacare.

Not content to blast them over the shutdown, which he instigated, Reid has recently blasted them with the hollow slander that they were "un-American" for a series of anti-Obamacare ads.

The Americans for Prosperity are producing and disseminating these ads, with the financial help of the Koch Brothers. These advertisements feature individual Americans who have lost their health insurance or pay higher premiums because of Obamacare. People throughout the country are suffering because of Obamacare. Any person, any agency who will take the time and trouble to take to task Congress, specifically President Obama and every legislator who supported Obamacare deserves all the support and praise one can muster.

If the Koch Brothers have advanced the cause of #MakeDCListen, if they are investing their funds to bring down liberal-elitist statist, government overreach, then they have nothing to be ashamed of as left-leaning news sites, think tanks, and talking heads reproach them.

Anyone who attacks Obama, Obamacare, and Obamanomics with such concentrated force and faithfulness is not an enemy, is not un-American, but very much American, and embodies all that makes this country great: free markets, free enterprise, free people, the rule of law, the respect for the individual.

Emilie Lamb of Tennessee has lupus, and because of Obamacare, she does not have enough money to live and care for herself while paying for her health care.

Politifact for Tampa Bay, Florida more accurately depicts the Americans for Prosperity as:'

the conservative advocacy group supported by Charles and David Koch.
Supported, not bought and owned, not sucked into a crony capitalist, corporate world.

Just as an aside, I write the following: God Bless the Koch Brothers!

Now, back to Americans for Prosperity, and their campaign ads against Obamacare.

These are effective and poignant, cutting to the deepest part of the viewer.

Obamacare is hurting real people. This disastrous law, from rollout to rollover, has done the exact opposite of what it promised: unaffordable, inaccessible, protecting no one but the bureaucrats who will keep their jobs, whether the websites work or not, whether people get better health care or not, whether the health care industry suffers, and doctors give up their practice, and the quality of medical coverage suffers.

"I thought that Obamacare was going to be a good thing. Barack Obama told us we could keep our health insurance if we liked it. And we can’t. I got a letter in the mail saying that my health insurance was over, that it was gone, it was canceled because of Obamacare. My premiums went from $52 a month to $373 a month. I’m having to work a second job to pay for Obamacare."
Working a second job just to pay for Obamacare? It's more like Obama-don't-care, as glib critics have shared over and over. Except that not only does Obama not care, but average, working Americans now have more cares, financial as well as emotional, because of this arrogant, over-aggrandized intervention of the federal government into the health care industry.

We don’t dispute Lamb’s troubles and we certainly don’t wish to diminish her plight. We’re not fact-checking her account or putting her on our Truth-O-Meter. Instead, we wanted to explore the issues that her story raises.
Alright, then. So what did Politifact find? The article spends more time defining lupus, how people suffer from the autoimmune disease, and the average costs which individual suffers usually face.
Politifact then questions Emilie about why she sought other plans, when she could have chosen a plan with a lower deductible, but would have had higher out-of-pocket costs.

The left-leaning fact-checkers are bending over backwards to defend Obama, Obamacare, and the aggressive expansion of the federal government into the health care industry.

Men and women are taking to the airwaves sharing their frustration and disgust with President Obama and his failed promises, or rather "Lie of the Year" as declared by Politifact in 2013. Instead of questioning them, the mainstream media needs to acknowledge that President Obama's legislation has been a massive failure, and needs to be repealed.

What about Emilie's story, Mr. President? Even Politifact had to acknowledge that they cannot spin the numbers, the pain and suffering, and the current failure of the current administration to help provide quality health care at an affordable price.

What about Emilie? Is her story negligible, too? Or is her horror story not true, either, Senator Reid?

On February 26, 2014, Cox played guest speaker to the
Peninsula Harbor Republicans group at the Los Verdes golf club, where he outlined
his initiative proposal to get the money out of politics and return the power
back to the people.

Political Activist
John Cox

A Cook County, Illinois native, John Cox grew up in
Chicago. “There are Republicans in Cook County”, he assured his audience.
Despite the liberal background of his parents (mother was a Chicago public
school teacher; his step-father was a postal worker), Cox moved to the right,
supporting free markets, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Following his
education and service as an attorney, Cox moved to Florida then California to
further his real estate career. Despite the massive downturn in the national
fortunes, and particularly in California, Cox made his home in sunny
California, finding out what he was missing
out on.

After sharing about his political activities (he ran against
Obama three times for state office), Cox introduced his new initiative, entitled
the Neighborhood Legislature initiative, which would expand the number of California’s elected legislators from 80 to
8000 assemblymembers and from 40 to 4000 state senators.

When Cox had first introduced the plan on the Jon and Ken Show, they shouted a collective “What?!” After
thirty minutes with the tough-talking conservatives, they endorsed the idea as
one of the greatest they had ever heard.

So, why send more people to Sacramento? Critics may ask.

Actually, the voters will not be sending more lawmakers to
Sacramento, but instead each current state senate and assembly district would
be divided up into one hundred neighborhoods, representing between 3,000-5,000
people.

Instead of grasping for funds from labor unions, interests groups,
and big corporations, individual candidates will only have to reach three
thousand voters. Big money isn’t necessary to win, since candidates will can
knock on doors, sit in living rooms, and talk with voters.

Where did Cox get this idea from? “Live Free or Die” New
Hampshire, where 1.5 million residents send 400 representatives to the legislature
every year. Everyone know everyone else in their separate districts. The people
who run for office include retired professionals and stay-at-home Moms who have
raised their kids and now want to raise the standard of living for their
communities and the state.

Some points worth considering about New Hampshire. The most
swing of swing states and highly influential in Presidential politics, the
state boasts no general sales or income tax. Also, least restrictive gun laws,
and the right to revolution is codified
in the state constitution! A libertarian paradise, New Hampshire likely
owes its limited government to the massive army of legislators who keep a check
on power.

So, how would this Neighborhood Legislature work in
California?

Cox explained that in every district with one hundred
neighborhood reps, the elected officials (each receiving a one thousand dollar
stipend) would elect one member to go to Sacramento. Will the lawmakers in the
capital would write laws, they would then pass the bills to every local
legislature in the state, and nothing would pass onto the Governor’s desk
without a majority vote from all 12,000 representatives.

Smaller districts would require local leaders to engage
their voters, know their names, and in turn encourage voters to get involved,
since casting a vote out of a few thousand can be more influential than competing
among millions of voters, and wondering the whole time whether your vote really
counts or not.

Wouldn’t money still influence the process?

Cox referred back to New Hampshire, where big spenders don’t
have a big influence in elections. “Voters look at you funny” if you spend lots
of money. “Why would I vote for someone who sent me a mailer when another candidate
knocked on my door?”

A pattern for real representative Democracy, Cox argued that
the Neighborhood Legislature initiative would be the biggest transfer of power
back to the people since 1776.

Any reform which promotes individual involvement while
diminishing the power of pay-to-play politics can’t be a bad thing. California
definitely could use reforms which frustrate power at the top by expanding it
at the bottom.

For more information on the Neighborhood Legislature initiative,
please visit

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is no stranger to
controversy, nor to making tough decisions with fractious colleagues to
accomplish great reforms.

After his election in 2010, financial strains on the Dairy
State’s budget forced the governor to reform the collective bargaining rights
of public employees. The global, unionized backlash flooded Madison and instigated
Democratic lawmakers to flee the state, thus attempting to deny Walker and the
state legislature’s Republican majorities the quorum to pass Act 10.

Walker worked with every member of his party, and
maneuvering pass illegal challenges, they passed the key reforms which fired up
limited government activists, distraught conservatives, and Tea Party affiliates.

Walker and four state senators faced a recall because of
measures, yet he survived, keeping his GOP caucus together as strongly as they
could. He defeated the recall in 2012, with his party winning back strong
majorities in Madison later that year.

Governor Walker has recognized the peril of dissent within a
party’s ranks, yet brought together every member to promote the future welfare
of the state Wisconsin.

With this background in mind, the Wisconsin Governor appealed
to all members of his party to work together against Democrats first before
holding members within the party accountable for not towing the platform
accurately.

“Well, your exactly
right for a lot of people, especially many of the people who helped elect us
share our concerns. The Federal government is too big, too expensive, too much apart
of our lives.”

Leadership is all about consistent messaging, and defining
the goals as well as the opposition. Not indicting Republicans, Walker lays out
of the platforms of the GOP, and encourages everyone to stand tall on it.

Walker recalled the victories of the statewide Republicans:

“In 2010, we not only elected
Republican governors, we elected Republican majorities in our legislative bodies,
and that made all the difference. We not only won, but we got big, bold reforms
done. Why? Because we had a Republican team in place. In Washington, we don’t have
Republicans leading the way on true reform. The focus should not be focusing on
fighting Republicans in primaries for the house or the senate.

I submit that much of
the disorder in Washington starts with the fact that Tea Party candidates swept
the majority in 2010, and the Establishment leadership did not take into
account their drive for reforms beyond the rhetoric. The Republican Party in
Washington D.C. is facing more growing pains than the statewide caucuses because
unlike the several states, the federal government still gets to print fiat
money ad infinitum to paper over the national debt. Pushing against federal
interest groups is a near impossibility without unity. Besides, the Republicans
only control the House, and no party can govern from one half of one branch of government.

GOP Big Wins
Across the Country

But at least they can prevent the other party from promoting
their own, unconscionable policies.

Huckabee returned to Walker’s efforts in Wisconsin, asking
if he would have accomplished anything if he had to fight his own party.

“No not at all. I
think’s that true with what happened in Michigan, with right to work. It’s true
in reforms you see across the country, where republicans lead state legislative
bodies and hold governorships. We had help from the Republican Establishment,
form a lot of grass roots, the Tea Party – we’re going to helpyou put power back in the hands of the
people.”

One more time, Walker emphasizes the many good things
accomplished by his Midwestern, conservative colleagues. He puts the focus on
the taxpayers, the people, and praises the three groups which liberal interests
and media bias want to distract and divide: the Republican Establishment, the
grassroots, and the Tea Party. While the Tea Party is learning the importance
of organized, tactical efforts, the Establishment is learning that they cannot
stray from principle, and the grassroots is learning to organize ally these
somewhat disparate (though hardly desperate) influences.

The real answer is not
to attack Republicans who pushed for reforms in the house.

But he maintained a respect for the diligence which
Americans have for their leaders, when they do not pay attention to their
duties in office and their constituents abroad:

After in a year from now,
if Republicans hold the Senate and the House, and they still get nothing done,
then it’s time to hold people accountable.

Get Republicans in office,
then hold them accountable.

Exactly. Get the right people in office first, then get the
right people to do the right thing.

Republican unity for limited government, local control,
individual liberty, and fiscal discipline cannot be put aside in 2014 as
partisans chase away the best candidate in the pursuit of a good one. Walker’s
example as governor and his statements as a guest commentator should engage all
conservatives, disaffected as well as disinterested, to fight against the
opposition Democratic Party this year, take back the US Senate, and hold the
newly-installed Republicans members to the party standard in the next.